Empire of Nicaea - Ideology and Hellenism

Ideology and Hellenism

The Nicene empire has been seen by some scholars as a period which saw the rise of ethnic Hellenic consciousness and Greek nationalism. However, these scholars caution that a rise in ethnic consciousness did not have an impact on the official imperial ideology.In the official ideology, the traditional Byzantine view of Byzantium as the successor of Rome was not overturned, as the usage of the word Rhomaioi for subjects of the Nicene emperors demonstrates.:The official ideology of the Nicene Empire was one of reconquest and militarism which was not to be seen in later 14th century Palailogan rhetoric.The ideology which characterized 13th century Nicaea was that of the continued significance of Constantinople, and the hope to recapture it, an ideology drawing less on claims of political universalism or Hellenic nationalism, than on Old Testament ideas of Jewish providence. The emperor in this period is frequently compared to Mosesor Zorobabel, or even as the “pillar of fire” which guides God’s people to the Promised Land, e.g. in a speech delivered by Theodore I Laskaris, written by Niketas Choniates.

The rhetoric of this period also glorified war and the reconquest of Constantinople using images not drawn from the Old Testament. For example, in his panegyric of Theodore I Laskarsis, Choniates describes a battle with a Seljuk sultan as a battle between Christianity and Islam, and rhetorically compares the wounds of Theodore, who had himself slain an enemy commander, to those of Christ on the crossDimiter Angelov suggests that western crusading ideology may have influenced the development of this view on reconquest, and during this period, there is mention that Patriarch Michael IV Autoreianos offered full remission of sins to Nicene troops about to enter battle, a practice almost identical to a western plenary indulgence. However, the granting of such indulgences was short lived, and many of the possible crusader influences seem to have dropped off after 1211

The Byzantines of the 13th century also drew parallels between the situation of the empire after 1204 and that of Classical Greeks. This evidence has helped to strengthen the view of some scholars, such as A. E. Vacalopoulos, who see these references, combined with a reevaluation of Byzantium's classical past, to be the genesis of Greek nationalismWith the loss of Constantinople, this comparison played on the idea of "hellenes surrounded by barbarians; Choniates equated the Seljuk sultan killed by Theodore I with Xerxes, and patriarch Germanos II recalled the victory of John III Vatazes as another battle of Marathon or Salamis.In much the same way, Theodore II Laskaris compared his father's victories to those of Alexander the Great and proceeded to extol the martial values of contemporary “Hellenes”.

In addition, this period seems to have seen a shift in how the word “Hellene” was used in Byzantine parlance. Up to this point, “Hellene” had borne a negative connotation, and was in particular associated with the remnants of paganism. In this period however, both the terms “Graikoi” and “Hellenes” appear to enter into the diplomatic usage of the empire as a form of religious and ethnic self-identification, spurred by a desire to differentiate the empire and its citizens from the Latins.Patriarch Germanus II of Constantinople in particular exemplifies this new vision of ethnic and religious identity, as, in his letters, he equates good birth with the purity of his Hellenistic ancestry, placing more value in his Hellenistic linguistic and ethnic background than in any association with Constantinople, showing his contempt for the Latins who prided themselves on possessing the city. There is a debate among scholars regarding the exact timing of the shift in meaning of the word Hellene. Roderick Beaton, considering the evidence of the usage of the term “Hellenes” in the 12th century, sees the reevaluation of the term as occurring before the loss of Constantinople in 1204. In addition, unlike VacalopoulosBeaton sees not the birth of Greek nationalism, but rather an embryonic “ethnic” awareness, primarily based around language.

Michael Angold notes that the ideology of the period displays Byzantium's ability to react and adapt to changing cultural and political circumstances, including exile, and that the ideological developments of this period were, for the most part, cut short and discarded by the restored empire of the Palialogi, as Michael VIII returned to the ideology of earlier periods.